Planning board denies request to upzone former parsonage at 4707 Marcel Drive

The Escambia County Planning Board denied a request April 7 to rezone 4707 Marcel Drive from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to High-Density Mixed-Use (HDMU), concluding that the proposed change failed to meet the county’s location and compatibility criteria.

Applicant Jacqueline Jamont told the board she planned to use the former parsonage for neighborhood-focused counseling and mental-health services and described the use as a private professional-services office rather than a clinic. "We're not trying to open up a clinic. We're just trying to do a private counseling service for our community," said Cynthia Wells, who spoke in support and identified management ties to the church property. Jamont also said the building had been used historically for Sunday school and community activities.

Staff findings and board concerns: Urban planner Kim Wilson presented staff findings that the requested HDMU rezoning was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and with the land development code because it would allow more intensive uses and higher residential density than the surrounding single-family neighborhood. "Staff found that the rezoning requested of HDMU is not consistent with the comprehensive plan due to the existing single-family residential uses that abut the subject property," Wilson told the board.

Neighbors told the board they fear increased traffic, higher intensity uses and loss of neighborhood character if the site is rezoned. Elizabeth Hoffner, a householder two doors away, said the owner had converted bedrooms into offices and that multiple therapists could operate on-site. "There’s going to be four therapists there, which means a minimum of four clients or patients," Hoffner said, and she raised concerns about traffic and children’s safety in the neighborhood.

Board action: After questions and discussion about alternatives and zoning criteria, a board member moved to adopt staff’s findings and deny the rezoning request; the motion carried. The board emphasized that its decision was based on zoning compatibility and the code’s location criteria, not on the applicant’s stated current operation.

What’s next: The denial preserves the property’s current MDR zoning; the applicant can later pursue other options within the existing district (conditional uses, home-based operations where allowed) or submit a different application that addresses staff and board concerns.